According to the EU report, there are three priority ecosystems for carbon conservation and management - forests, peatlands and agriculture. Reducing deforestation rates by 50 per cent by 2050 and maintaining them at this level until 2100 (with deforestation stopping altogether when 50 per cent of the area remains in each country that was originally forested in 2000) would avoid the release of up to 50 Gt (gigatonnes) of carbon this century. Reducing deforestation in tropical regions would have the biggest impact. Emissions from deforestation are equivalent to about 15 per cent of the total global anthropogenic carbon emissions.

 The draining peatland for agriculture and other land uses emits up to 0.8 Gt of carbon a year. This is particularly problematic for tropical peat-swamp forests in South-East Asia which are being drained for palm oil and pulpwood production. The carbon value of peatland far outweighs the carbon benefits of the biofuel crops. For example, the combustion of palm oil produced on drained peatland equates to a carbon 'debt' which could take centuries of biofuel production to repay.

Agriculture has the potential to make significant gains in carbon storage. If best management practices were adopted, it is estimated that 5.5-6 Gt of CO₂ equivalent could be saved per year by 2030. About 90 per cent of this could be achieved by enhancing carbon sinks and 10 per cent from emission reductions. This could make agriculture almost carbon neutral. These management practices could include crop rotation and agroforestry which combines food production with tree planting.

The report suggests that the agricultural sector could be second to the building sector in 2030 in terms of mitigating climate change. Other potential benefits would include improvements to biodiversity, soil fertility and local economies.

See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm    Source: United Nations Environment Programme report. (2009). The Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Mitigation. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. Download from: http://www.unep.org/publications/search/pub_details_s.asp?ID=4027

The article made me reflect on farming in New Zealand.  Farming is one of the major sources of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions, including methane from livestock and carbon from soil erosion and soil damage, and development of peat.  Because New Zealand farmers are in a highly competitive global market, they are forced to minimise costs and this means they are resisting efforts to reduce the effects of their climate change emissions.  I found the European Commission article interesting because it suggests that at least in theory, we could change our agriculture from a source of greenhouse gases to a carbon sink. 

In order to do this, New Zealand agriculture would have to change from livestock production per hectare to livestock production per livestock unit (i.e. more milk or meat or wool per animal, rather than more per hectare).  Our farmers would also need to recieve a realistic return for growing trees as carbon sinks rather than cutting and clearing.  Currently, the government is suggesting a charge of $25 per tonne of carbon produced whereas the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) recommends ecu70 per tonne (or about $140 per tonne).